The replication is considered a part of pleadings, and the court relied on Division Bench judgments to support this legal principle.

Sat Pal, J.

1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 4.8.1997 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Amritsar. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff for framing of additional issue which reads as under:-

"Whether the defendants have installed electricity poles at the disputed sites on 25.10.1996 after the passing of injunction order and if so, whether they are liable to remove the same as the same were installed in violation of the court orders? OPP."

Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

2 Mr. Mahajan the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff for framing the additional issue was rejected by the learned trial court only on the ground that the point with regard to this additional issue was taken by the plaintiff in the replication and the replication is not a part of the pleadings. He, however, submits that the said observation of the learned trial court is contrary to the law laid down by two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Saligram v. Shiv Shankar, A.I.R. 1971 Pb. & Hy. 437 and Gram Sabha Saliara v. Nahar Singh, 1982 Land Laws Reporter 300. In the said two judgments of this Court, it was clearly held that replication is a part of pleadings. In view of the law laid down by this court in the above mentioned judgments, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 4.8.1987 is not legally sustainable.

3. Mr. Kaushal. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff itself is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in P.S.E.B. v. Ashwani Kumar, J.T. 1997(5) S.C. 182. So far maintainability of the suit is concerned, the respondent P.S.E.B. will be at liberty to approach the learned trial court. However, keeping in view the law down by two Division Benches of this court as stated herein above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff for framing of the additional issue is allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.